My point was that defending the sporting use of an AR is taking on a battle without the constitution behind you.

Funny....Dick Metcalf does it every month in his column "Modern Sporting Rifles" that runs in Guns and Ammo magazine. He also defends and promotes its use for hunting regularly on their TV show. In both of the examples tho, both Metcalf and the "Hambulance" driver are more validating the use of ARs for hunting than defending them for that purpose. No one here is claiming that hunting is the ONLY legitimate reason one owns a AR, just that is is ONE of those legitimate reasons. No one here is claiming the 2nd Amendment refers only to hunting firearms, but it certainly applies to them also. Same kinda goes for handguns. Overall, the majority of handguns owned in America have never been shot at a game animal, but hunting still is a valid reason to own one.

Ya'll are talking about the shooter driving the "hambulance" but what needs noted is that the "reporter", Cooper or CNN could have edited the report to make the feral hog shooter and farmers to look like crazed freaks and the AR platform the EVIL tool they wield...

Yet they showed the rifle, the high cap mags and the shooter as upstanding tools used in the fight to help eradicate or minimize the feral hog issue...

It seems to me that this is a rebuttal to the argument that "nobody needs more than X# of rounds to hunt." If you're going to get that angry at every moderately pro-gun argument that doesn't directly relate to the second amendment, your blood pressure should probably be checked frequently. It talked about a hunter using a semi-automatic, high capacity, multiple projectile, people killing, barrel shrouded spray fire yadda yadda firearm to responsibly take feral animals that are causing damage. No children were injured in the making of that film. Maybe CNN is attempting to get a little credibility back? And I would imagine more antis watch CNN than most other stations (well maybe MSNBC), so maybe this should be taken at face value, rather than looking for the Nazi disarmament conspiracy behind a story on hog hunting.

My point was that defending the sporting use of an AR is taking on a battle without the constitution behind you. I have no idea why this is not clearly understood.

Funny, he clearly explained his choice of gear without the need for invoking the Constitution.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

The point is not what we "need or do not need." The point is what The Constitution says we have the right to have. The anti-gunners are backing us into need based right to own weapons. We will lose if we let them set the framework for the debate on their terms.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.